On 19 October 2011 10:21, Ian Lynch <[email protected]> wrote: > On 19 October 2011 09:35, Ross Gardler <[email protected]> wrote: > >> On 19 October 2011 09:20, Ian Lynch <[email protected]> wrote:
... > If [anyone] called themselves the Champions of Open Desktop > Productivity Tools or something, raised money and gave some of it to LibO > and some to pay an OOo developer why would there be a problem? If Apache Trademarks are respected then anyone can do whatever they like. If Apache marks are used there needs to be formal agreement with the ASF about that use (this would be obtained via the trademarks committee with recommendations from the AOOo PPMC) > Paying to put on a conference could be done by ASF but it could be done by a > third party with or without ASF cooperation. (Better with, but just to > illustrate that it would be technically possible to run a conference > separately as long as no trademarks were infringed). Careful, the ASF does not pay to put conferences on. We do have money and volunteers to help people put events on. Probably off topic for this thread but I wanted to nip a potential misunderstanding in the bud. > So there is a massive range of flexibility even now within the system as it > exists. Yes, it works pretty well for nearly 200 projects, many of which have a higher economic value than AOOo, many of which have a much lower value. The question in my mind is whether AOOo feel it is not suitable simply because it is different, or is there genuine need for the kind of model AOOo had in the past. > If we knew specifically what problems TOO had we might be able to > help. Of course the problem they have might be in defining the problem ;-) > Yes. We need TOO to participate in this discussion. As well as the many other organisations that have an interest in this area. Ross
